This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have not been involved in the current dispute and I don't really want to spend the time to go over everything that's been written here, but I want to ask - is there any research on what became of the remnants of the Goguryeo people after Goguryeo's collapse? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Balhae was founded with a mix of Koreans (Goguryeo people) and nomadic tribe people, while the government was made up of a Goguryeo royal family. It is not wrong to say "most" Goguryeo people went to Balhae, or the Balhae people wouldn't have considered itself as a successor to Goguryeo. Good friend100 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Southern Tang specifically announce that they were successor to the Tang? (Balhae doesn't say so because of the edit lock). The article doesn't state that Southern Tang considered itself as a successor. Also, 9 other small kingdoms were created with the fall of the Tang, so ALL those kingdoms could be considered as successors. It is a slightly different case, while with Balhae (unified silla was the conqueror and retained most of Goguryeo culture, etc) only one state is created as the successor of Goguryeo to "continue" the Goguryeo lineage. Good friend100 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100, I don't know if you read Chinese characters at all, but this is where to look with regard to the claims that Li Bian (the founder of Southern Tang) made: zh:s:資治通鑑/卷282. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good Friend. Parhae ONLY declared that they were the sucessors to Koguryo in diplomatic language to Japan. They never said they were the sucessors to Koguryo to the Tang or to Silla for that matter. Parhae did this so they could inherit the good relationship that Koguryo had with Japan. The royal surname of Koguryo was Ko and most of the diplomats sent to Japan were Ko's. Now, most of the diplomats sent to Tang had the surname of Dae, which various Tang sources could be Malgal, could be Koguryo, but no one says they were any of the major royal surnames of Koguryo that were known at the time. Parhae is a complex nation and to say that they are just the sucessors to Koguryo is, in my opinion and based on the surviving information, just too simplistic to say. WangKon936 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez, I just noticed that this dispute had basically spilt over at the Balhae article as well. I'm not going to get involved in the disputes, but I suggest participating editors spend their efforts on how to represent both sides of the issue fairly and equally rather than arguing over which country "owns" Goguryeo and Balhae. Leave that to the experts. Our job as WP editors is to only reflect credible sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
all others are written by Korean authors or korean sites. Good friend100 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. began as a British colony. The English language is Germanic. But what people call "United States" is not British or Germanic. Just because its beginning may be related to neighboring cultures does not make it non-Korean. According to your logic, the Japan article should say Japan was "Koreanic" and "something other than Japanese," and have Korean history template and Korean name "Ilbon". Your citations call Goguryeo Korean, so call it Korean and be done with it. FieldNorth 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You're trying to argue by exceptions. There are nearly 500 books in Google books that call Goguryeo Korean. [4] FieldNorth 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
wow your logic is twisted. It is about the ethnicity, not really the geopolitical sense. How can an ethnicity suddenly become another simply because of a unification.
The Goguryeo became Korean part simply does not make sense. How can your ethnicity, and basically your DNA change for any reason?
Again, I don't understand why you keep using geography and current borders to justify that Goguryeo wasn't Korean. That also applies for the pathetic argument about the movement of Goguryeo's capital.
Also, if China became a "singular" country where its 100% Chinese, I guess that the Yuan dynasty was where it began to be "fully Chinese". Thats obviously not true because everyone before the Yuan dynasty were the same people with same ethnicity (although they were obviously separated into different kingdoms, and I'm not excluding other minorities). Well thats very obvious that Korea occupies the Korean peninsula. It does not matter whether or not Korea controls Manchuria today. You still don't get my point. I have repeatedly said that the Chinese claim on Goguryeo is flawed because they think Goguryeo is theirs because its what is now in modern day China. I already know that TODAY Korea includes only the Korean territory. Good friend100 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is on the way to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation,why we here make such a straw poll?The straw poll cann't do anythings,considering the block of Wikipedia in China,so it is obvious the the result of straw poll are biased.-- Ksyrie 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, Ksyrie, there's nothing that we gain consensus of people who are not part of the Wikipedia community. Besides, there's sufficient participation from the PRC here in the Wikipedia community; a plurality of Chinese Wikipedia administrators live in the PRC, for example. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish ( mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Last week, I was planning to unprotect the article, and then did not do so due to an unrelated event last week. I think the feelings with regard to that event has subsided, but at the same time, it now appears that the disputes are flaring up again, even though I do think the disputes are not affecting the consensuses the straw polls showed previously. I'd like to hear some thoughts, though, on whether we're ready for unprotection. (Mediators, in particular, if you think unprotection is inappropriate at the moment, I'd like to hear from you.) -- Nlu ( talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The original one that I brought had long gone past its closing period, but whether the votes that came after the closing period are considered or not, there did appear to be a consensus for having {{ History of Korea}} and a proposed {{ History of Manchuria}} as templates on the page. If/when the article is unprotected (see above) that will be considered the initial point of consensus, I think. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just that I have mid-terms going on. Is there a concensus? - General Tiger
Article is unprotected. Please try to be on your best behavior. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks a bunch. Good friend100 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
As disappointed as I am with the decision to incorporate the HoM template, I will go along with the decision for now. However, based the argument above regarding Dongbei vs. Manchuria, I will put "Dongbei" in brackets next to the HoM title on the template - all reasons have been explained above. If you have any problems with it, please talk first. Assault11 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I separate most of the information out from the "Modern politics" section into a separate page named " Goguryeo controversies", or something like that? Then I can merge some of the information from the Northeast Project page. ( AQu01rius • Talk) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I'll show you what I meant. Check my modification on the section.
If anyone objects the move, feel free to revert it. ( AQu01rius • Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that Goguryeo was *always* the most powerful of the three kingdoms. At times, it faced devastating defeats to other kingdoms, notably Baekje, which went as far as killing Gogugwon of Goguryeo and taking Pyongyang. So I believe the words "at times the most powerful of the three" is more accurate. Cydevil38 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Then when were they not the most powerful? I don't think there were any times when another Korean kingdom was more powerful until near Goguryeo's fall and the rise of Silla's power. Again, I was refering to the overall strength of Goguryeo over the other two kingdoms. Good friend100 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
it seems they have to have the word china at least once in the beginning of the article. That map was really edited so that people see the word "China" along with everything else. Instead go research and prove Goguryeo is Chinese instead of putting a flimsy cover on top. Good friend100 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who started this section, but would people please stop using such emotionally loaded language such as "pitiful"...? It seems like people here have a maturity problem or something? Can't we all act like a bunch of adults instead of "he said, she said" junior high school students?
Anyways. Komdori, I'd advise that you read the previous discussions in this page and try and understand the kind of consensus that many of us actively participated in over the past couple of months. It seems rather unfair that you are making modifications to the article without appreciating what has been done under consensus thus far. It's hardly fair for you to be an active participant at this point, when you were an inactive observer for so long. I'd advise that you reach some sort of visibility here before you make too many changes to the article, otherwise, you can only expect people who have been actively involved for much longer then you to misunderstand and be defensive. WangKon936 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop changing maps and templates without full discussion and consensus first. The Three Kingdoms map is most relevant because it is historically contemporaneous, and Goguryeo is one of the Three Kingdoms, as most prominent sources describe it. FieldNorth 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the mediation does not need any more discussion raising edits as it has enough now. I'm sure there was an agreement mentioning China using the name templates. Good friend100 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I started this section so we can all discuss and come to a concensus regarding which map to use. Personally, I think it's best to use the map that describes the boundaries at the time of the kingdom's existance rather then an overlay of today's boundaries. I've checked other articles about ancient kingdoms in wiki and all that I've seen ( Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Alexander the Great) do not show current national boundaries. Some wiki articles show today's boundaries, but never any labels on the location of current nations. Overlaying Koguryo with both current day boundaries and nation labels would be rather odd and inconsistant with the rest of wiki.
Having the territory overlay map in Goguryeo controversies (as it is now) is probably most appropriate. WangKon936 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot assume that nobody knows where Korea is simply using your class. I don't understand why you have to start another problem. We unblocked this article and now we are leading down the same path as a couple months before. Good friend100 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears as if Komdori's intentions are educational rather then political. However, your map is apparently making people think that your intentions are political rather then educational. To those ends, I'd recommend that you make the boundaries and labels a little more subtle. It will still achieve your ends as well as make many people here feel more comfortable.
Lastly, I personally still don't see the need to put national boundaries and nation labels on the map. Why? Well you have to think about the audience. How many people who are ignorant about where East Asia is are going to click onto "Goguryeo" and learn about a kingdom that is very obscure to the average non-Asian English speaker? People who click Goguryeo and check out the article are going to have at least some understanding of where East Asia is geographically, thus an outlay of the Korean peninsula and Liadong is not going to look foreign to them. WangKon936 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is this "discussion" that established the so-called "consensus" on another rewording of Goguryeo's characterization in the intorductory section? Cydevil38 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe "by the Chinese" is an overly broad stroke. I'd suggest "by some People's Republic of China historians." -- Nlu ( talk) 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese regional concept is extremely rare and generally rejected by mainstream, non-Chinese references. There's already more than enough coverage of this modern political issue in the separate article, summarized in its own section in this article, and even in the introduction. This fringe view should not be included in the very first sentence. FieldNorth 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've re-inserted this as a compromise: Goguryeo is considered an important ancestral state of the Korean nation by the Koreans. It is also considered an important part of regional history of Northeast China by the local Chinese.
I feel that presents both sides fairly, but as I've said previously, I won't dwell on it. As for the usage of "local Chinese", I feel that term is more appropriate than "People's Republic of China", or "People's Republic of China's historians", because I do think Wangkon's point that some historians have been making assertions on Goguryeo prior to its adoption by the central government does hold water. Also, I've had personal experiences with Northeast Chinese who do indeed regard it as an important part of their identity, though they take it very differently than what the Chinese government intends. So I think "local Chinese", or more specifically "some local Chinese" is the most proper term. Cydevil38 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, simply your own perspective cannot justify anything. The entire Chinese government agrees that Gaogouli is a Chinese kingdom. Chinapride 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please watch out for sockpuppets here. User:FieldNorth has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Etimesoy. See:
This is also the same person as User:CronusXT. This person has disrupted our discussion by trying to create a "lack of consensus" here, and by revert-warring. The reality is that we already have some consensus that both Korea AND Manchuria (or Northeast China) need to be mentioned appropriately somehow.
Also, I reverted all edits by User:Dongsoola, as that user seemed to be just trolling. Hopefully, the mediators can help us determine who's who here, and we can maintain some sanity here.-- Endroit 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I count 2 major dissenters here, 3 if you include the sockpuppeteer as one.-- Endroit 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Current article about GoGuoryeo is missing the most important element, which is GoGooryo main tribe Maek. So whatever discussion is not really going in right direction. GoGooryo's ruling tribe is Maek and that's where the GoGooryo's identiy in ancient time exists. I am new in editing, I suggest someone to open discussion on Maek tribe.-- Dongsoola 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I would like to also suggest to open a discussion on Japanese GoGooryo connection, especially Emishi and Maek tribe.-- Dongsoola 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maek issue will never be settled in Korea and Japan, so I am bringing this up.
Chinese and Manchurian will never claim Koguryo as one of their kingdom if they know the real issue of Koguryo.
Maek issue is very very important to define racial characteristic of Korean, and understanding the how Japan came to its existence.
I strongly believe that Maek is Ainu descendant tribe. Maek is some kind of bear, and there is a lot of things that can relate Maek tribe with Emishi of Japan.
There are lots of evidences.
First, Emish were horse riders. u can find out about Emish in http://emishi-ezo.net/. They used horse riding tactics. Hokkato horse(Washu) is the same horse that is in GoGooryo Sooryupdo painting.
Emishi was called MoIn(毛人) by yamato in Japan, there is a theory in Korea that horse rider with last name Mo is the ancester of Korean last name Kim.
I believe that Emish's armour is the usuall Koguryo soldier armour. and that armour type is the root of Korean armour till Chosen dynasty.
Also I believe that Korean tradition of not cutting hair is descended from Ainu tradition of not cutting hair.
I belive Puyo is actually Ainu word of the holly window in East direction.
I am posting this, so that more people are aware of what I found out and bring advance in finding the true root of Korean. -- Dongsoola 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I came to believe that Korean traditional boat is based on Ainu type wooden boat.
I am planning to edit this page with pictures and references in future, but I am giving out the facts for now.-- Dongsoola 05:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have to tediously tackle this thing paragraph by paragraph. I feel like a freak'in lawyer. Anyways, let's look at the current wording for this important sentence:
"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Goguryeo is also considered an important regional kingdom in Manchuria by the People's Republic of China. Goguryeo was the most powerful of the three kingdoms for much of its rule."
I recommend that we change this passage to:
"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Both North and South Korean consider Goguryeo as an important ancestral kingdom and helped forge Korean history, culture and ethnic identity. The People's Republic of China considers it an important regional kingdom in Manchuria that played a tributary role in the Chinese cultural sphere. Goguryeo was a powerful kingdom that was an active participant in the power struggle between the Three Kingdoms of Korea as well as the foreign affairs of associated Chinese kingdoms." WangKon936 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why has "History of Manchuria" template been changed to "History of Northeast China"...? WangKon936 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
According to a study on Djarylgashinova's works, as far as I can remember, Goguryeo's politics centered around the peninsula focusing on the two other kingdoms which Goguryeo called as their "subjects". This view is based on records left by Goguryeo people themselves, such as the Gwanggaeto stele. Gwangaeto stele is basically a grandoise Goguryeo propaganda that it is(or should be) the master of the peninsula. Cydevil38 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a controversial claim made by the People's Republic of China and is covered in Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the entire section is based on a work by Wei Chunchung, who was a participant of the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The section on "Central Plains Dynasties" is factually true, but I don't see it's point and I don't think it proves anything. Yamato Japan, Baekje and Silla were given similar titles and paid tribute in the Chinese vassal system in a similar manner. It doesn't mean anything other then Koguryo, like Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan, acknowledged China as a powerful and cultured kingdom and maintaining relations with it would help bring them legitimacy, culture and technology. Furthermore, this section should not be in it's own seperate section but in a section summarizing Koguryo's overal relationship with the Chinese central plains dynasties in order to maintain NPOV. Lastly, the use of the term "Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" is not a standard term used in English academic circles. Yes, I know what it means, but I don't think most people would. It may need it's own wiki article or, a simpler term may need to be used. WangKon936 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that those who favor a specific and controversial POV are avoiding the discussions on this talk page and adding what they want via fiat. Not good. I suggest this gives us more latitude to change, edit or delete what they write unless they do a better job of defending their edits in this talk page. WangKon936 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is just plain untidy. Littered with dramatic descriptions and imaginative details and creative interpretations. Those who polluted this articles should clean it up. And stop the littering. Wiki pokemon 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this entire section is based on a work by Wei Chuncheng, who's a part of the academic committee in the Northeast Project. While it is factually correct that Goguryeo at times paid tributes to engage in diplomatic relations and trade with China as any other Korean kingdoms, it is the Norhteast Project/PRC's interpretation that this tributary relationship somehow makes Goguryeo a "Chinese" kingdom. The section's source is biased and unreliable, and interpretation of facts is tainted by modern politics. I think the section can become much more NPOV when the section is based on a non-Chinese source and the tributary relationship is interpreted as a trade/diplomatic relationship rather than a political relationship, and also add context of how trade and diplomacy was done in Asia during those times. Cydevil38 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend we change this section to reflect Koguryo's overall relations with the Chinese dynasties as well as a section to discuss Koguryo's relations with the other intrapeninsula states (i.e. Baekje, Silla, Gaya, etc.). I don't really understand what purpose, educational or otherwise, a tedious list of tributary contributions by Koguryo to the Chinese dynasties would fulfill. I mean, if we are to keep things consistant, does that mean we include a similar section on the articles of other contemperary kingdoms that offered tribute to Chinese dynasties such as Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan? Let's see what concensus on this looks like. Who is for or against? WangKon936 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end part reads:
"...although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon."
The emphasis above is mine. Please provide a source for this assertion.
Mumun 無文
22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Silla and Tang Dynasty are on the same side. Silla is arguably more connected to modern Korea than Goguryeo. Jurchens were from Goguryeo, but had weaker connection with Silla.-- Jiejunkong 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The title is relevant because it is about successive wars between Goguryeo and Chinese dynasties. Also, the Jurchens are not "major descendents" of Goguryeo, neither are the Khitans. Balhae, however, was a different case which had significant Mohe elements unlike Goguryeo. Cydevil38 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
All are invited to the History of Manchuria template discussion page [5]. There is a discussion on the appropriate use of "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". The outcome of the discussion will probably affect this page as well. Wiki pokemon 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Before you delete disputation tags, you need to wait for consensus. And also I added my reasons in this talk page. My reasons are based on the history records I have read for years. These history records were recorded by Jurchen people like Wanyan Xu in 12th century. It has nothing to do with your temper or "the sickness" you mentioned. You need to calm down and discuss the issue before doing blanking. Thank you. -- Jiejunkong 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Based on researched conducted by people w/ conflict of interest 2. Entirely original research based on non-English primary sources (which effectively blocking everyone else from checking the facts) 3. Oh come one. You can't list Baidu Baike as a source like you can't list Wikipedia as a source (source Wikipedia on any research paper, you WILL get a fail-grade, at least in Columbia.) 66.108.252.91 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
First, without adding canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly (I think this is due to "WP:Unreferenced source"); Second, after I added canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly. Can we talk about how can we add verifiable history records into the article? My standing point is that, in the “ Twenty-Four Histories” written at the moment of historical events (these history records were written in the next dynasty based on all collected books from the dynasty being described):
I hope your deletions of my editings have good reasons, not due to your temper or lack of the ability to find out verifiable history records.-- Jiejunkong 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I am listing the current reference list below, and ask for the removal of those references with "XXX" prefixes.
XX ^ Austin Ramzy (2004). Rewriting History (HTML). TIME. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.
XX ^ Bruce Klingner (2004). China shock for South Korea (HTML). Asia Times. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.
??? ^ a b Koguryo (HTML). Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12. ??? ^ Lee, Ki-baik (1984). A new history of Korea, tr. by Wagner & Shultz. Seoul: Ilchogak, 19. ISBN 89-337-0204-0.
XXX ^ History (HTML). Goguryeo. Proud History of Korea. Mygoguryeo.com (2004). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
??? ^ 魏存成(Wei Chuncheng). “中原、南方政权对高句丽的管辖册封及高句丽改称高丽时间考(The Domination and Conferring Titles on Koguryo of the State Political Power of Central Plains and the Investigation on the Time of Changing the Name From Koguryo to Koryo).” 史学集刊(Collected Papers of History Studies), January 2004, No. 1, pp.73-79. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.articles/shixjk/shix2004/0401/040112.htm
XXX ^ Baidu Baike, a Chinese online and free Encyclopedia, http://baike.baidu.com/view/5801.htm, s.v. “高句丽.”
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《晋书•慕容隽载记》:高句丽王钊遣使谢恩,贡其方物。隽以钊为营州诸军事、征东大将军、营州刺史,封乐浪公,王如故。《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:十二月,王遣使诣燕,纳质修贡⋯⋯以王为征东大将军、营州刺史,封乐浪公,王如故。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:安帝封王高句丽王、乐安(浪)郡公。《南史•高句丽传》:晋安帝义熙九年,高丽王遣长史高翼奉表,献储白马,晋以琏为使持节、都督营州诸军事、征东将军、高丽王、乐浪公。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:遣大鸿肪拜琏孙云使持节、都督辽海诸军事、征东将军、领护东夷中郎将、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》: 拜安为安东将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:出帝初,诏加延使持节、散骑常侍、车骑大将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•文宣帝纪》:以散骑常侍、车骑将军、领东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高丽王成 为使持节、侍中、骑大将军、领护东夷校尉,王、公如故。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•废帝纪》: 以高丽王世子汤为使持节、领东夷校尉、辽东郡公、高丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《隋书•高丽传》:汤病卒,子元嗣立。高祖使使拜元为上开府、仪同三司,袭爵辽东郡公,赐衣一袭。元奉表谢恩,并贺祥瑞,因请封王。高祖优册元为王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 遣前刑部尚书沈叔安往册建武为上柱国、辽东郡公、高丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 太宗闻建武死⋯⋯。十七年,封其嗣王藏为辽东郡王、高丽王。
XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture.htm
XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture01.htm
^ Brown, Ju; John Brown (2006). China, Japan, Korea Culture and Customs. BookSurge Publishing, 81. ISBN 1419648934.
^ Beckwith, Christopher I. (August 2003). "Ancient Koguryo, Old Koguryo, and the Relationship of Japanese to Korean" (PDF). 13th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Retrieved on 2006-03-12.
^ Koguryo (HTML). Encarta. MSN (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
^ Korea (HTML). Columbia Encyclopedia. Bartleby.com (2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
^ Korea, South (HTML). CIA World Factbook. CIA (2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-27.
^ "Twenty-Four Histories"
^ "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 2, Biography of Wanyan Aguda.
^ "First Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 199-2; "Second Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 219; "Official Records of Song Dynasty", volume 491; "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 1.
XXX ^ Byington, Mark (2004-01-01). Koguryo part of China?. Koreanstudies mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-03-06.
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo for more details.
Source materials cannot be used in Wikipedia without separate, authoritative scholarly backing. See WP:NOR, specifically:
“ | Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. | ” |
and perhaps most relevant to the image in dispute:
“ | Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. | ” |
Even if we were, quixotically, to regard centuries-old chronicles as reliable sources in their own right, it is not acceptable to stitch claims drawn from diverse such chronicles into a single, novel framework. -- Visviva 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians. It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.
Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation. There is no interpretation in the depiction. The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid.
This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other). User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources. This is his incorrect random guess. There is no assembling here. The proofs are merely supportive. The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.
You are increasingly making POV statements that "Chinese and Japanese versions are good but Korean versions are not". Your edits and sources are both POV and you are violating WP:NPOV. Good friend100 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the relationship between Sumo Mohe and Goguryeo, please see the following source:
I believe many sources agree with this interpretation: The "Sumo Mohe" existed in parallel with Goguryeo (Koguryo), so the arrow from "Goguryeo" to "Sumo Mohe" should be stricken in the above diagram. Instead, an arrow can be drawn from "Goguryeo" to "Balhae" (Parhae).-- Endroit 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Some sections or subsections without the "Unreferenced" mark is also under referenced. References from non-NPOV sites like my.goguryeo.com and Baidu Baike are unacceptable. They are not only highly biased, but also with heavy copyright violations, many articles there are pirated and plagiarized. In addition, volatile maillist sites are not reliable sources. Adding such references will cause more disputations.-- Jiejunkong 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You have violated the NPOV policy by adding POV edits to articles like Baeku Mountain. And I'm not making "tons of accusations".
Saying "thats not what I want to see" shows your attitude towards the NPOV policy here and keeping the article neutral. You do not control the article. I have referred your actions to an admin.
I'm not simply just making up accusations. Making edits like [ [7]] are POV. By reverting NPOV edits continuesly, you have violated WP:3RR. Good friend100 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As there may be some confusion, based on recent posts on various pages:
The Mediation Committee cannot encourage or discourage requests for help in other places. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing a Request for Arbitration. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of a Request for Checkuser. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of Three revert rule violation reports, or going to other Administrator's noticeboards. Mediators are not security guards. Mediators cannot even express an opinion on whether or not you should protect the pages, as that seems to be a point of disagreement, although if it were not a point of disagreement it might be appropriate for us to do so. We certainly can't express an opinion about what version an article should be protected in.
There are some things you should know, however.
What the mediators are here to do is help you all reach a consensus on article content which will make everyone happy.
If anyone involved in the mediation has questions concerning the role of the mediators, please ask them on the mediation page on the MedComWiki.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have not been involved in the current dispute and I don't really want to spend the time to go over everything that's been written here, but I want to ask - is there any research on what became of the remnants of the Goguryeo people after Goguryeo's collapse? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Balhae was founded with a mix of Koreans (Goguryeo people) and nomadic tribe people, while the government was made up of a Goguryeo royal family. It is not wrong to say "most" Goguryeo people went to Balhae, or the Balhae people wouldn't have considered itself as a successor to Goguryeo. Good friend100 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Southern Tang specifically announce that they were successor to the Tang? (Balhae doesn't say so because of the edit lock). The article doesn't state that Southern Tang considered itself as a successor. Also, 9 other small kingdoms were created with the fall of the Tang, so ALL those kingdoms could be considered as successors. It is a slightly different case, while with Balhae (unified silla was the conqueror and retained most of Goguryeo culture, etc) only one state is created as the successor of Goguryeo to "continue" the Goguryeo lineage. Good friend100 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100, I don't know if you read Chinese characters at all, but this is where to look with regard to the claims that Li Bian (the founder of Southern Tang) made: zh:s:資治通鑑/卷282. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good Friend. Parhae ONLY declared that they were the sucessors to Koguryo in diplomatic language to Japan. They never said they were the sucessors to Koguryo to the Tang or to Silla for that matter. Parhae did this so they could inherit the good relationship that Koguryo had with Japan. The royal surname of Koguryo was Ko and most of the diplomats sent to Japan were Ko's. Now, most of the diplomats sent to Tang had the surname of Dae, which various Tang sources could be Malgal, could be Koguryo, but no one says they were any of the major royal surnames of Koguryo that were known at the time. Parhae is a complex nation and to say that they are just the sucessors to Koguryo is, in my opinion and based on the surviving information, just too simplistic to say. WangKon936 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez, I just noticed that this dispute had basically spilt over at the Balhae article as well. I'm not going to get involved in the disputes, but I suggest participating editors spend their efforts on how to represent both sides of the issue fairly and equally rather than arguing over which country "owns" Goguryeo and Balhae. Leave that to the experts. Our job as WP editors is to only reflect credible sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
all others are written by Korean authors or korean sites. Good friend100 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. began as a British colony. The English language is Germanic. But what people call "United States" is not British or Germanic. Just because its beginning may be related to neighboring cultures does not make it non-Korean. According to your logic, the Japan article should say Japan was "Koreanic" and "something other than Japanese," and have Korean history template and Korean name "Ilbon". Your citations call Goguryeo Korean, so call it Korean and be done with it. FieldNorth 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You're trying to argue by exceptions. There are nearly 500 books in Google books that call Goguryeo Korean. [4] FieldNorth 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
wow your logic is twisted. It is about the ethnicity, not really the geopolitical sense. How can an ethnicity suddenly become another simply because of a unification.
The Goguryeo became Korean part simply does not make sense. How can your ethnicity, and basically your DNA change for any reason?
Again, I don't understand why you keep using geography and current borders to justify that Goguryeo wasn't Korean. That also applies for the pathetic argument about the movement of Goguryeo's capital.
Also, if China became a "singular" country where its 100% Chinese, I guess that the Yuan dynasty was where it began to be "fully Chinese". Thats obviously not true because everyone before the Yuan dynasty were the same people with same ethnicity (although they were obviously separated into different kingdoms, and I'm not excluding other minorities). Well thats very obvious that Korea occupies the Korean peninsula. It does not matter whether or not Korea controls Manchuria today. You still don't get my point. I have repeatedly said that the Chinese claim on Goguryeo is flawed because they think Goguryeo is theirs because its what is now in modern day China. I already know that TODAY Korea includes only the Korean territory. Good friend100 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is on the way to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation,why we here make such a straw poll?The straw poll cann't do anythings,considering the block of Wikipedia in China,so it is obvious the the result of straw poll are biased.-- Ksyrie 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, Ksyrie, there's nothing that we gain consensus of people who are not part of the Wikipedia community. Besides, there's sufficient participation from the PRC here in the Wikipedia community; a plurality of Chinese Wikipedia administrators live in the PRC, for example. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish ( mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Last week, I was planning to unprotect the article, and then did not do so due to an unrelated event last week. I think the feelings with regard to that event has subsided, but at the same time, it now appears that the disputes are flaring up again, even though I do think the disputes are not affecting the consensuses the straw polls showed previously. I'd like to hear some thoughts, though, on whether we're ready for unprotection. (Mediators, in particular, if you think unprotection is inappropriate at the moment, I'd like to hear from you.) -- Nlu ( talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The original one that I brought had long gone past its closing period, but whether the votes that came after the closing period are considered or not, there did appear to be a consensus for having {{ History of Korea}} and a proposed {{ History of Manchuria}} as templates on the page. If/when the article is unprotected (see above) that will be considered the initial point of consensus, I think. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just that I have mid-terms going on. Is there a concensus? - General Tiger
Article is unprotected. Please try to be on your best behavior. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks a bunch. Good friend100 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
As disappointed as I am with the decision to incorporate the HoM template, I will go along with the decision for now. However, based the argument above regarding Dongbei vs. Manchuria, I will put "Dongbei" in brackets next to the HoM title on the template - all reasons have been explained above. If you have any problems with it, please talk first. Assault11 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I separate most of the information out from the "Modern politics" section into a separate page named " Goguryeo controversies", or something like that? Then I can merge some of the information from the Northeast Project page. ( AQu01rius • Talk) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I'll show you what I meant. Check my modification on the section.
If anyone objects the move, feel free to revert it. ( AQu01rius • Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that Goguryeo was *always* the most powerful of the three kingdoms. At times, it faced devastating defeats to other kingdoms, notably Baekje, which went as far as killing Gogugwon of Goguryeo and taking Pyongyang. So I believe the words "at times the most powerful of the three" is more accurate. Cydevil38 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Then when were they not the most powerful? I don't think there were any times when another Korean kingdom was more powerful until near Goguryeo's fall and the rise of Silla's power. Again, I was refering to the overall strength of Goguryeo over the other two kingdoms. Good friend100 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
it seems they have to have the word china at least once in the beginning of the article. That map was really edited so that people see the word "China" along with everything else. Instead go research and prove Goguryeo is Chinese instead of putting a flimsy cover on top. Good friend100 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who started this section, but would people please stop using such emotionally loaded language such as "pitiful"...? It seems like people here have a maturity problem or something? Can't we all act like a bunch of adults instead of "he said, she said" junior high school students?
Anyways. Komdori, I'd advise that you read the previous discussions in this page and try and understand the kind of consensus that many of us actively participated in over the past couple of months. It seems rather unfair that you are making modifications to the article without appreciating what has been done under consensus thus far. It's hardly fair for you to be an active participant at this point, when you were an inactive observer for so long. I'd advise that you reach some sort of visibility here before you make too many changes to the article, otherwise, you can only expect people who have been actively involved for much longer then you to misunderstand and be defensive. WangKon936 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop changing maps and templates without full discussion and consensus first. The Three Kingdoms map is most relevant because it is historically contemporaneous, and Goguryeo is one of the Three Kingdoms, as most prominent sources describe it. FieldNorth 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the mediation does not need any more discussion raising edits as it has enough now. I'm sure there was an agreement mentioning China using the name templates. Good friend100 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I started this section so we can all discuss and come to a concensus regarding which map to use. Personally, I think it's best to use the map that describes the boundaries at the time of the kingdom's existance rather then an overlay of today's boundaries. I've checked other articles about ancient kingdoms in wiki and all that I've seen ( Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Alexander the Great) do not show current national boundaries. Some wiki articles show today's boundaries, but never any labels on the location of current nations. Overlaying Koguryo with both current day boundaries and nation labels would be rather odd and inconsistant with the rest of wiki.
Having the territory overlay map in Goguryeo controversies (as it is now) is probably most appropriate. WangKon936 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot assume that nobody knows where Korea is simply using your class. I don't understand why you have to start another problem. We unblocked this article and now we are leading down the same path as a couple months before. Good friend100 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears as if Komdori's intentions are educational rather then political. However, your map is apparently making people think that your intentions are political rather then educational. To those ends, I'd recommend that you make the boundaries and labels a little more subtle. It will still achieve your ends as well as make many people here feel more comfortable.
Lastly, I personally still don't see the need to put national boundaries and nation labels on the map. Why? Well you have to think about the audience. How many people who are ignorant about where East Asia is are going to click onto "Goguryeo" and learn about a kingdom that is very obscure to the average non-Asian English speaker? People who click Goguryeo and check out the article are going to have at least some understanding of where East Asia is geographically, thus an outlay of the Korean peninsula and Liadong is not going to look foreign to them. WangKon936 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is this "discussion" that established the so-called "consensus" on another rewording of Goguryeo's characterization in the intorductory section? Cydevil38 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe "by the Chinese" is an overly broad stroke. I'd suggest "by some People's Republic of China historians." -- Nlu ( talk) 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese regional concept is extremely rare and generally rejected by mainstream, non-Chinese references. There's already more than enough coverage of this modern political issue in the separate article, summarized in its own section in this article, and even in the introduction. This fringe view should not be included in the very first sentence. FieldNorth 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've re-inserted this as a compromise: Goguryeo is considered an important ancestral state of the Korean nation by the Koreans. It is also considered an important part of regional history of Northeast China by the local Chinese.
I feel that presents both sides fairly, but as I've said previously, I won't dwell on it. As for the usage of "local Chinese", I feel that term is more appropriate than "People's Republic of China", or "People's Republic of China's historians", because I do think Wangkon's point that some historians have been making assertions on Goguryeo prior to its adoption by the central government does hold water. Also, I've had personal experiences with Northeast Chinese who do indeed regard it as an important part of their identity, though they take it very differently than what the Chinese government intends. So I think "local Chinese", or more specifically "some local Chinese" is the most proper term. Cydevil38 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong, simply your own perspective cannot justify anything. The entire Chinese government agrees that Gaogouli is a Chinese kingdom. Chinapride 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please watch out for sockpuppets here. User:FieldNorth has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Etimesoy. See:
This is also the same person as User:CronusXT. This person has disrupted our discussion by trying to create a "lack of consensus" here, and by revert-warring. The reality is that we already have some consensus that both Korea AND Manchuria (or Northeast China) need to be mentioned appropriately somehow.
Also, I reverted all edits by User:Dongsoola, as that user seemed to be just trolling. Hopefully, the mediators can help us determine who's who here, and we can maintain some sanity here.-- Endroit 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I count 2 major dissenters here, 3 if you include the sockpuppeteer as one.-- Endroit 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Current article about GoGuoryeo is missing the most important element, which is GoGooryo main tribe Maek. So whatever discussion is not really going in right direction. GoGooryo's ruling tribe is Maek and that's where the GoGooryo's identiy in ancient time exists. I am new in editing, I suggest someone to open discussion on Maek tribe.-- Dongsoola 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I would like to also suggest to open a discussion on Japanese GoGooryo connection, especially Emishi and Maek tribe.-- Dongsoola 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maek issue will never be settled in Korea and Japan, so I am bringing this up.
Chinese and Manchurian will never claim Koguryo as one of their kingdom if they know the real issue of Koguryo.
Maek issue is very very important to define racial characteristic of Korean, and understanding the how Japan came to its existence.
I strongly believe that Maek is Ainu descendant tribe. Maek is some kind of bear, and there is a lot of things that can relate Maek tribe with Emishi of Japan.
There are lots of evidences.
First, Emish were horse riders. u can find out about Emish in http://emishi-ezo.net/. They used horse riding tactics. Hokkato horse(Washu) is the same horse that is in GoGooryo Sooryupdo painting.
Emishi was called MoIn(毛人) by yamato in Japan, there is a theory in Korea that horse rider with last name Mo is the ancester of Korean last name Kim.
I believe that Emish's armour is the usuall Koguryo soldier armour. and that armour type is the root of Korean armour till Chosen dynasty.
Also I believe that Korean tradition of not cutting hair is descended from Ainu tradition of not cutting hair.
I belive Puyo is actually Ainu word of the holly window in East direction.
I am posting this, so that more people are aware of what I found out and bring advance in finding the true root of Korean. -- Dongsoola 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I came to believe that Korean traditional boat is based on Ainu type wooden boat.
I am planning to edit this page with pictures and references in future, but I am giving out the facts for now.-- Dongsoola 05:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have to tediously tackle this thing paragraph by paragraph. I feel like a freak'in lawyer. Anyways, let's look at the current wording for this important sentence:
"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Goguryeo is also considered an important regional kingdom in Manchuria by the People's Republic of China. Goguryeo was the most powerful of the three kingdoms for much of its rule."
I recommend that we change this passage to:
"It is one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, along with Baekje and Silla. Both North and South Korean consider Goguryeo as an important ancestral kingdom and helped forge Korean history, culture and ethnic identity. The People's Republic of China considers it an important regional kingdom in Manchuria that played a tributary role in the Chinese cultural sphere. Goguryeo was a powerful kingdom that was an active participant in the power struggle between the Three Kingdoms of Korea as well as the foreign affairs of associated Chinese kingdoms." WangKon936 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why has "History of Manchuria" template been changed to "History of Northeast China"...? WangKon936 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
According to a study on Djarylgashinova's works, as far as I can remember, Goguryeo's politics centered around the peninsula focusing on the two other kingdoms which Goguryeo called as their "subjects". This view is based on records left by Goguryeo people themselves, such as the Gwanggaeto stele. Gwangaeto stele is basically a grandoise Goguryeo propaganda that it is(or should be) the master of the peninsula. Cydevil38 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a controversial claim made by the People's Republic of China and is covered in Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the entire section is based on a work by Wei Chunchung, who was a participant of the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The section on "Central Plains Dynasties" is factually true, but I don't see it's point and I don't think it proves anything. Yamato Japan, Baekje and Silla were given similar titles and paid tribute in the Chinese vassal system in a similar manner. It doesn't mean anything other then Koguryo, like Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan, acknowledged China as a powerful and cultured kingdom and maintaining relations with it would help bring them legitimacy, culture and technology. Furthermore, this section should not be in it's own seperate section but in a section summarizing Koguryo's overal relationship with the Chinese central plains dynasties in order to maintain NPOV. Lastly, the use of the term "Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" is not a standard term used in English academic circles. Yes, I know what it means, but I don't think most people would. It may need it's own wiki article or, a simpler term may need to be used. WangKon936 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that those who favor a specific and controversial POV are avoiding the discussions on this talk page and adding what they want via fiat. Not good. I suggest this gives us more latitude to change, edit or delete what they write unless they do a better job of defending their edits in this talk page. WangKon936 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is just plain untidy. Littered with dramatic descriptions and imaginative details and creative interpretations. Those who polluted this articles should clean it up. And stop the littering. Wiki pokemon 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this entire section is based on a work by Wei Chuncheng, who's a part of the academic committee in the Northeast Project. While it is factually correct that Goguryeo at times paid tributes to engage in diplomatic relations and trade with China as any other Korean kingdoms, it is the Norhteast Project/PRC's interpretation that this tributary relationship somehow makes Goguryeo a "Chinese" kingdom. The section's source is biased and unreliable, and interpretation of facts is tainted by modern politics. I think the section can become much more NPOV when the section is based on a non-Chinese source and the tributary relationship is interpreted as a trade/diplomatic relationship rather than a political relationship, and also add context of how trade and diplomacy was done in Asia during those times. Cydevil38 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend we change this section to reflect Koguryo's overall relations with the Chinese dynasties as well as a section to discuss Koguryo's relations with the other intrapeninsula states (i.e. Baekje, Silla, Gaya, etc.). I don't really understand what purpose, educational or otherwise, a tedious list of tributary contributions by Koguryo to the Chinese dynasties would fulfill. I mean, if we are to keep things consistant, does that mean we include a similar section on the articles of other contemperary kingdoms that offered tribute to Chinese dynasties such as Silla, Baekje and Yamato Japan? Let's see what concensus on this looks like. Who is for or against? WangKon936 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end part reads:
"...although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon."
The emphasis above is mine. Please provide a source for this assertion.
Mumun 無文
22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Silla and Tang Dynasty are on the same side. Silla is arguably more connected to modern Korea than Goguryeo. Jurchens were from Goguryeo, but had weaker connection with Silla.-- Jiejunkong 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The title is relevant because it is about successive wars between Goguryeo and Chinese dynasties. Also, the Jurchens are not "major descendents" of Goguryeo, neither are the Khitans. Balhae, however, was a different case which had significant Mohe elements unlike Goguryeo. Cydevil38 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
All are invited to the History of Manchuria template discussion page [5]. There is a discussion on the appropriate use of "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". The outcome of the discussion will probably affect this page as well. Wiki pokemon 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Before you delete disputation tags, you need to wait for consensus. And also I added my reasons in this talk page. My reasons are based on the history records I have read for years. These history records were recorded by Jurchen people like Wanyan Xu in 12th century. It has nothing to do with your temper or "the sickness" you mentioned. You need to calm down and discuss the issue before doing blanking. Thank you. -- Jiejunkong 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Based on researched conducted by people w/ conflict of interest 2. Entirely original research based on non-English primary sources (which effectively blocking everyone else from checking the facts) 3. Oh come one. You can't list Baidu Baike as a source like you can't list Wikipedia as a source (source Wikipedia on any research paper, you WILL get a fail-grade, at least in Columbia.) 66.108.252.91 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
First, without adding canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly (I think this is due to "WP:Unreferenced source"); Second, after I added canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly. Can we talk about how can we add verifiable history records into the article? My standing point is that, in the “ Twenty-Four Histories” written at the moment of historical events (these history records were written in the next dynasty based on all collected books from the dynasty being described):
I hope your deletions of my editings have good reasons, not due to your temper or lack of the ability to find out verifiable history records.-- Jiejunkong 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I am listing the current reference list below, and ask for the removal of those references with "XXX" prefixes.
XX ^ Austin Ramzy (2004). Rewriting History (HTML). TIME. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.
XX ^ Bruce Klingner (2004). China shock for South Korea (HTML). Asia Times. Retrieved on 2007-05-07.
??? ^ a b Koguryo (HTML). Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12. ??? ^ Lee, Ki-baik (1984). A new history of Korea, tr. by Wagner & Shultz. Seoul: Ilchogak, 19. ISBN 89-337-0204-0.
XXX ^ History (HTML). Goguryeo. Proud History of Korea. Mygoguryeo.com (2004). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
??? ^ 魏存成(Wei Chuncheng). “中原、南方政权对高句丽的管辖册封及高句丽改称高丽时间考(The Domination and Conferring Titles on Koguryo of the State Political Power of Central Plains and the Investigation on the Time of Changing the Name From Koguryo to Koryo).” 史学集刊(Collected Papers of History Studies), January 2004, No. 1, pp.73-79. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.articles/shixjk/shix2004/0401/040112.htm
XXX ^ Baidu Baike, a Chinese online and free Encyclopedia, http://baike.baidu.com/view/5801.htm, s.v. “高句丽.”
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《晋书•慕容隽载记》:高句丽王钊遣使谢恩,贡其方物。隽以钊为营州诸军事、征东大将军、营州刺史,封乐浪公,王如故。《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:十二月,王遣使诣燕,纳质修贡⋯⋯以王为征东大将军、营州刺史,封乐浪公,王如故。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《三国史记•高句丽本纪》:安帝封王高句丽王、乐安(浪)郡公。《南史•高句丽传》:晋安帝义熙九年,高丽王遣长史高翼奉表,献储白马,晋以琏为使持节、都督营州诸军事、征东将军、高丽王、乐浪公。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:遣大鸿肪拜琏孙云使持节、都督辽海诸军事、征东将军、领护东夷中郎将、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》: 拜安为安东将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《魏书•高句丽传》:出帝初,诏加延使持节、散骑常侍、车骑大将军、领护东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高句丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•文宣帝纪》:以散骑常侍、车骑将军、领东夷校尉、辽东郡开国公、高丽王成 为使持节、侍中、骑大将军、领护东夷校尉,王、公如故。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《北齐书•废帝纪》: 以高丽王世子汤为使持节、领东夷校尉、辽东郡公、高丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《隋书•高丽传》:汤病卒,子元嗣立。高祖使使拜元为上开府、仪同三司,袭爵辽东郡公,赐衣一袭。元奉表谢恩,并贺祥瑞,因请封王。高祖优册元为王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 遣前刑部尚书沈叔安往册建武为上柱国、辽东郡公、高丽王。
YYY ^ Historical texts are seen in 《旧唐书•高丽传》: 太宗闻建武死⋯⋯。十七年,封其嗣王藏为辽东郡王、高丽王。
XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture.htm
XXX ^ http://www.mygoguryeo.net/culture01.htm
^ Brown, Ju; John Brown (2006). China, Japan, Korea Culture and Customs. BookSurge Publishing, 81. ISBN 1419648934.
^ Beckwith, Christopher I. (August 2003). "Ancient Koguryo, Old Koguryo, and the Relationship of Japanese to Korean" (PDF). 13th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Retrieved on 2006-03-12.
^ Koguryo (HTML). Encarta. MSN (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
^ Korea (HTML). Columbia Encyclopedia. Bartleby.com (2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
^ Korea, South (HTML). CIA World Factbook. CIA (2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-27.
^ "Twenty-Four Histories"
^ "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 2, Biography of Wanyan Aguda.
^ "First Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 199-2; "Second Official Records of Tang Dynasty", volume 219; "Official Records of Song Dynasty", volume 491; "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", volume 1.
XXX ^ Byington, Mark (2004-01-01). Koguryo part of China?. Koreanstudies mailing list. Retrieved on 2007-03-06.
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo for more details.
Source materials cannot be used in Wikipedia without separate, authoritative scholarly backing. See WP:NOR, specifically:
“ | Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. | ” |
and perhaps most relevant to the image in dispute:
“ | Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. | ” |
Even if we were, quixotically, to regard centuries-old chronicles as reliable sources in their own right, it is not acceptable to stitch claims drawn from diverse such chronicles into a single, novel framework. -- Visviva 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians. It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.
Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation. There is no interpretation in the depiction. The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid.
This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other). User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources. This is his incorrect random guess. There is no assembling here. The proofs are merely supportive. The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.
You are increasingly making POV statements that "Chinese and Japanese versions are good but Korean versions are not". Your edits and sources are both POV and you are violating WP:NPOV. Good friend100 19:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the relationship between Sumo Mohe and Goguryeo, please see the following source:
I believe many sources agree with this interpretation: The "Sumo Mohe" existed in parallel with Goguryeo (Koguryo), so the arrow from "Goguryeo" to "Sumo Mohe" should be stricken in the above diagram. Instead, an arrow can be drawn from "Goguryeo" to "Balhae" (Parhae).-- Endroit 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Some sections or subsections without the "Unreferenced" mark is also under referenced. References from non-NPOV sites like my.goguryeo.com and Baidu Baike are unacceptable. They are not only highly biased, but also with heavy copyright violations, many articles there are pirated and plagiarized. In addition, volatile maillist sites are not reliable sources. Adding such references will cause more disputations.-- Jiejunkong 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You have violated the NPOV policy by adding POV edits to articles like Baeku Mountain. And I'm not making "tons of accusations".
Saying "thats not what I want to see" shows your attitude towards the NPOV policy here and keeping the article neutral. You do not control the article. I have referred your actions to an admin.
I'm not simply just making up accusations. Making edits like [ [7]] are POV. By reverting NPOV edits continuesly, you have violated WP:3RR. Good friend100 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As there may be some confusion, based on recent posts on various pages:
The Mediation Committee cannot encourage or discourage requests for help in other places. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing a Request for Arbitration. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of a Request for Checkuser. Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of Three revert rule violation reports, or going to other Administrator's noticeboards. Mediators are not security guards. Mediators cannot even express an opinion on whether or not you should protect the pages, as that seems to be a point of disagreement, although if it were not a point of disagreement it might be appropriate for us to do so. We certainly can't express an opinion about what version an article should be protected in.
There are some things you should know, however.
What the mediators are here to do is help you all reach a consensus on article content which will make everyone happy.
If anyone involved in the mediation has questions concerning the role of the mediators, please ask them on the mediation page on the MedComWiki.